Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 96 (79313)
01-18-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Abshalom
01-18-2004 7:23 PM


One of the more arcane methods used to date the handful of specimens who were fortunate enough to survive Noah's Flood is to count the tree rings in the huge gopher wood beams that Ron Wyatt found on Mt. Ararat.
I'm sorry, what exactly is "gopher wood"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Abshalom, posted 01-18-2004 7:23 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 96 (79345)
01-19-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
01-18-2004 10:26 AM


Re: Interesting...
I apologize for my tardiness in responding to you, sidelined. Yet here it is. My point was merely to say that if the Creationist God is omnipotent, and created everything, than certainly he may change it (for all power really means all power). Thus with the premise that a God exists and he is omnipotent, I believe its easy to see a Creationist perspective. The real issue is to prove or disprove that premise, correct?
Also if I sounded proud I do apologize for that as well, I was just attempting to answer Stephen's questions.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 10:26 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2004 12:11 AM Soracilla has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 96 (79348)
01-19-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Soracilla
01-19-2004 12:05 AM


Re: Interesting...
Soracilla, it is a good theological idea to avoid bring God's power to miraculously fiddle with things into the scientific side of the discussion.
Once you start to use that as an explanation for what is observed it can, like the one Ring of Power, become very seductive. The only place it ends up is painting God as a deceitful trickster who has made it impossible to use our brains to come to an honest conclusion about the universe we see and, at the same time, to agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis. God the Jester is not a very good theological position to paint yourself into.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Soracilla, posted 01-19-2004 12:05 AM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 7:09 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 49 of 96 (79387)
01-19-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-16-2004 5:15 PM


Re: Both Sides
quote:
The scientific hypothesis for creation is that there is a Creator, and that all of the universe we can experience exists because this Creator put it there.
This is not a scientific hypothesis because 1. it is not testable
2. it is not falsifiable.
"Goddidit" hypotheses go nowhere because they fail these two criteria of scientific hypotheses. Methodological naturalism is the way that science has progressed and has been dramatically successful. Please point out a single discovery or scientific theory that has benefited or been a result of appeals to mythological god/gods/pink unicorns etc.
quote:
It has meaning according to the purpose or whim of this Creator. "It is there for such or so reason in the mind of the Creator, or because it appealed to the subjective desires of the Creator." This is, in part, a psychological hypothesis, since it addresses the mind and emotions of the Creator.
Again, it could be a sentient cosmic candied apple in the galactic goats rectum that is responsible...it could be the ghost of Elvis. Just like your statement, you cannot falsify either of my "creation hypotheses" nor can you test them...that is why such whimsical thought is absent from scientific hypotheses and only holds sway among the superstitious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-16-2004 5:15 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-20-2004 3:22 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 96 (79602)
01-20-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Mammuthus
01-19-2004 9:57 AM


Re: Both Sides
Mammuthus,
You ask,
Please point out a single discovery or scientific theory that has benefited or been a result of appeals to mythological god/gods/pink unicorns etc.
Bible Code research is the most sophisticated. Theomatics qualifies as well, prayer studies. All that I know of appeal to the God Jehovah.
Incidently, Malachi 3:10 cites Jehovah's "falsify Me" experiment. The above one of the many possible ways of scientifically studying the hypothesis. Thomas, in putting his hand in the wounds of Yeshua, was an early example of this sort of thing.
Again, it could be a sentient cosmic candied apple in the galactic goats rectum that is responsible...it could be the ghost of Elvis. Just like your statement, you cannot falsify either of my "creation hypotheses" nor can you test them...that is why such whimsical thought is absent from scientific hypotheses and only holds sway among the superstitious.
Your sarcasm suggests a subjective pressure in your remark that might excuse an otherwise awful display of scientific ignorance. Science has a way of separating competing hypotheses, called strong inference. But ad hoc explanations do not weaken the plausibility of a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed. The Jehovah is real hypothesis has many, many scientific confirmations, and so is rather plausible. Deal with it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Mammuthus, posted 01-19-2004 9:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 3:27 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 10:54 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 65 by Trixie, posted 01-21-2004 3:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 96 (79653)
01-20-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NosyNed
01-19-2004 12:11 AM


Re: Interesting...
Great point Ned, I was not in anyway trying to paint myself into a "God the Jester" position. I was merely saying that, from a Creationist perspective of God (or perhaps the majority of Creationists), there is a scientific approach to it. In addition, you presupposed that coming to an honest conclusion about the universe through science would mean coming to an evolutionist view, away from Genesis and Creationism or even Intelligent Design (at least I read it that way; correct me if I am mistaken). Actually, science has led many toward I.D. and Creationism, like Dr. Behe, of whom I'm sure you've heard, author of Darwin's Black Box. My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous, and really, one who believes that has no place in trying to make the other side convinced of Evolution, if he himself will not give opposing sides a fair hearing (for they've already ruled out any other idea save their own). In other words, why should the Creationist give an Evolutionism a thought, if the Evolutionist will not do the same for the Creationist (or vise versa, of course, for some Creationists are equally as guilty).

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2004 12:11 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2004 7:30 PM Soracilla has not replied
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 01-20-2004 7:48 PM Soracilla has replied
 Message 54 by hitchy, posted 01-20-2004 8:14 PM Soracilla has not replied
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2004 9:50 PM Soracilla has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 96 (79657)
01-20-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Interesting...
quote:
Actually, science has led many toward I.D. and Creationism, like Dr. Behe, of whom I'm sure you've heard, author of Darwin's Black Box.
I have yet to see anything approaching science in ID theory. It is based on personal incredulity instead of data. If you want I can show you a fossil progression that shows the development of an IC system in the middle ear. That's right, remove one piece of the middle ear and the whole thing won't work, yet the parts can be shown to have evolved. This one counterexample shoots a big hole in Behe's argument, ie irreducibly complex systems can evolve and have evolved. He just prefers to talk about the biological systems that don't fossilize so that fossil evidence can't falsify his assumptions.
quote:
My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous, and really, one who believes that has no place in trying to make the other side convinced of Evolution, if he himself will not give opposing sides a fair hearing (for they've already ruled out any other idea save their own). In other words, why should the Creationist give an Evolutionism a thought, if the Evolutionist will not do the same for the Creationist (or vise versa, of course, for some Creationists are equally as guilty).
I completely agree that science should never quit investigating and experimenting. However, we shouldn't take backwards steps either. In physics classes, for example, they no longer try and measure the "ether" through which electricity passes, no longer look for demons that cause disease but rather bacteria and viruses. The problem for a young earth is that it is falsified by the data time and time again. Old Earth Creationism has the problem of explanatory power, as does ID theory, and also can not explain the fossil record in the absence of evolution.
Oh, and by the way, I did start out being a creationist and was active in the church for many of my younger years. Once I was exposed to science (early in childhood) I read what I could, from both sides (science books and the Bible). Final conclusion for me is that science strives to find correct theories through open methodology and corrects itself with internal controls. Creationism tries to make ad hoc rationalizations for things which they needed no scientific proof to believe in in the first place. Once you understand the science you will understand why some of us are short with some creationists, look for references to "Dr. Dino" for example. For me evolutionary theory is no different than quantum theories, gravitational theories, relativistic theory; they all blend into Science. I come to these boards hoping that people will walk away with an understanding of science in place of the misunderstandings they came in with. Creationists seem to want to propagate misunderstanding so that people will believe as they do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 7:09 PM Soracilla has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 53 of 96 (79659)
01-20-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Interesting...
Actually, science has led many toward I.D. and Creationism, like Dr. Behe, of whom I'm sure you've heard, author of Darwin's Black Box. My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin
Dr. Behe has led himself away from science and into mysticism, as evidenced by Darwin's Black Box, a thoroughly unscientific work that is riddled with errors, and his failure to even attempt to perform any scientific research on ID.
I am not aware of any proponent of ID and/or creationism who is not also a fundamentalist of some religion, almost all Christian, and is not committed to a religious explanation in spite of any evidence.
My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous
Formally, the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life; it addresses how life changed after the origin.
If one says that other view on the orgins of the panoply of life is scientific without investigating other views, then that's dangerous and unwarranted. Saying that no other extant view on the origins of the panoply of life is scientific after investigating other views extensively is a conclusion based on the available evidence. Thank goodness we have done the latter and not the former. Additional evidence of the correctness of our conclusion is afforded by the observation that the ID crowd appears to be distancing temselves even further from actual scientific investigation and committing themselves exclusively to political activism.
In other words, why should the Creationist give an Evolutionism a thought, if the Evolutionist will not do the same for the Creationist
How about giving the evidence a thought, and following where it leads, no matter how it may conflict with your preconceptions?
We have given creationism far more than a thought. We've investigated it thoroughly, and some continue to investigate it. It has failed every test.
Creationism was the dominant scientific paradigm of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. The geologists of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, devout Christians to a man, reluctantly abandoned the idea of a young Earth and a global flood, because the theory was contradicted by the evidence. Darwin and his predecessors did the same for the idea of young life and the separate creation of Man. Many have attempted to resuscitate creationism since then, but the evidence just isn't there to support it.
Most of modern creationism consists of attacking various branches of science rather than developing any coherent theories, and the few attempts at developing coherent theories have been abject failures (e.g.: Behe and Dembski) that their proponents have not dared to subject to review and criticism by appropriate experts. But the appropriate experts have read what they have published, and pointed out the fundamental and fatal flaws and errors in many places that are fairly easy for an enquiring mind to find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 7:09 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 2:50 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 67 by Soracilla, posted 01-21-2004 6:49 PM JonF has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 54 of 96 (79667)
01-20-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Interesting...
nice to hear a thoughtful conversation that contains no hostility.
if i may chime in--creationists look at it as "why can't we be accepted or at least heard in scientific circles? it is only fair that both sides are given equal time so people can make up their own minds." that might work if you are arguing about matters of "taste" like should slot machines be legalized in maryland. people can give pros and cons to both sides and then let the public decide.
however, science is not a public debate forum. the uses of certain technologies, such as nuclear power or cloning, can be debated b/c these topics are a matter of opinion. on the other hand, the hypotheses and theories that led up to harnassing nuclear power or cloning are not a matter of debate. either the evidence supports the idea or not. if not, time to go back to the drawing board. if a hypothesis is supported, then it is tested again, and again, and again, and again...
to believe in creationism or not is a matter of opinion. however, it is not science. several others have already commented on how creationism is not science, so i won't go into detail. the fact of the matter is that most creationistic claims are not falsifiable or testable. the overall idea that genesis is historically accurate has been overwhelmingly disproven time and time again by evidence gathered through the fields of geology, anthropology, archeology, paleontology, etc. even if evolution were not introduced until the very end of a symposium on creationism, elvis would have already left the building.
saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous
if another view on the origins of life on Earth is put forth and is scientific, it would be heard. i am sure several have. why don't we hear about them while we still hear about evolution? in over 150 years, no one has been able to scientifically disprove evolution or provide a better explanation. evolution is a robust scientific theory that has defeated all comers. the danger lies with accepting pseudoscience as actual science based on appeals to emotion. also, which creation myth should we choose? science is a great equalizer of opinion. either x is supported by the evidence or it is not.
to say that scientists don't listen to the creationist side of the story is overgeneralizing. i cannot speak for everyone, but i have looked into creationism and have found it lacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 7:09 PM Soracilla has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 96 (79688)
01-20-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Interesting...
If you think that the creationist side hasn't been heard then you should spend sometime reading over threads here.
As an example, even whatever has been responded to. And the response continued even when he demonstrated he wasn't reading the responses. It continued even when he made up more and more wild and silly ideas. It still continued even when he supplied no support for his ideas. I think that was "listening" to a degree above and beyond what is fair.
Also it is hard to know what we are supposed to be listening for. It seems each individual creationist makes up their own ideas. We have young earths, old earths, old earths with young life, old earths with one flood or many floods, young earths with no evolution at all, young earths with more evolution than any biologist would believe and finally the ID'ers at least some of which accept everything that science does, old earth, evolution, no flood and so on, except that they suggest that space aliens tinkered with things every so often (but not most of the time) and don't know how or why they did.
Maybe you'd like to advance what you think we should be listening to and why you think it is worth listening to. Then we will attempt to give you the hearing you think is fair.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 7:09 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 11:43 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 96 (79700)
01-20-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
01-20-2004 9:50 PM


Re: Interesting...
...accept everything that science does, old earth, evolution, no flood and so on...
I have one quick question that came quickly to me while reading this. What do you define as "science"? Anyone can answer, I'd be interested to hear everyone's views on it. Thanks.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2004 9:50 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by hitchy, posted 01-21-2004 12:38 AM Soracilla has not replied
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 1:14 AM Soracilla has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 57 of 96 (79707)
01-21-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 11:43 PM


If I may...
definition i use in class...
process of explaining natural phenomena through observation, experimentation, and peer verification. science deals with natural phenomena that can be explained through natural laws. empirical observations are used to form hypotheses that must be testable and falsifiable. a theory is an tentative explanation of related natural phenomena that is based on many hypotheses that have been tested and supported many times.
dictionary version: a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
if anyone wants to add anything, i would appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 11:43 PM Soracilla has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 96 (79711)
01-21-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Soracilla
01-20-2004 11:43 PM


Science
LOL, I'll be very upfront with you. This is not easy to define without grey edges. That is why science blends into poor science which blends into pseudo-science. On the boundaries it can be tough to be completely clear.
To a partial degree it is "what scientists do".
However, the "definitions" you've been given so far are what really counts. It is the nature of activities and approaches used in the processes in the scientific endeavour that counts.
So I will attempt to make a partial list of my own. Be aware that books have been written on the subject and nuiances are debated.
1) Evidence
Anything that you want to have treated with in any seriousness must have some sort (and that covers a lot of ground) of data that others may obeserve, manipulate or reproduce.
2) Reproduction/Replication
If an important finding is published then it gets only some limited amount of excitement until it has been replicated (and perhaps more than once). A very good example was cold fusion. It was exciting and, while many felt it was unlikely on theortical grounds, it got attempted replications rather quickly. It failed. However, it is exciting enough that some are still putting some effort into it. Until it has good replicable results (and perhaps some sort of theoretical explanation) it won't be exciting anyone again.
3) Testable
This is more than replication of the intial observations. It is desirable that a new idea make different predictions from the old one and that these predictions be testable in some way.
4) falsifiable
Is it possible to make test that will show that the idea is wrong? Many idea (theories, explanations) can not be mathematically proven to be absolutely for sure to be "true". However, an idea becomes an accepted theory if it is possible to think of ways of showing it to be wrong and it passes many such tests. Gradually you run out of new falsification ideas and gradually the idea is more and more accepted. Note that for important things this doesn't necessarily end. Relativity is still tested.
5) Peer Verification (as noted above)
This may mean a number of things but when it is being treated in the right way it means that any experimental result, calculation or hypothosis is subject to terrible, furious debate attempting to tear it down. I've talked with practicing researchers about work they have done. The first, and sometimes most withering, "peer" review is within the lab that is considering publishing a result. Months and longer can go by while the researchers try to rip into their own results. No one wants to be caught out and embarrassed.
6) Coherent
By this I mean, it is understood that new ideas and results, to be really comfortably accepted have to fit into a grand scheme of all other disciplines and results. As we learn more and more it gets harder and harder to over turn existing theories because they have been subject to so much testing and refinement and because there is so much existing evidence that a new idea must explain. Ad-hoc explanations that stand alone just don't cut it.
I'm sure more will follow but that is a bit of it.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Soracilla, posted 01-20-2004 11:43 PM Soracilla has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 96 (79719)
01-21-2004 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by JonF
01-20-2004 7:48 PM


Re: Interesting...
Just one little correction. Dembski hasn't really tried to develop a coherent theory and Behe only offered a throw-away comment that could easily be dismissed on the evidence that was already known.
ID actively avoids generating a genuine theoretical framework that could challenged evolution. This is why their current attempts at altering the school curriculum do little more than try to remove evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 01-20-2004 7:48 PM JonF has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 60 of 96 (79722)
01-21-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-20-2004 3:22 PM


Re: Both Sides
quote:
Bible Code research is the most sophisticated. Theomatics qualifies as well, prayer studies. All that I know of appeal to the God Jehovah.
Incidently, Malachi 3:10 cites Jehovah's "falsify Me" experiment. The above one of the many possible ways of scientifically studying the hypothesis. Thomas, in putting his hand in the wounds of Yeshua, was an early example of this sort of thing.
Quoting the bible as a confirmation of the validity of..the bible?
It would seem that the scientific ignorance you accuse me of belongs to you alone.
Show how any of the above mentioned supposed hypotheses are actually testable and falsifiable. Appeals to mythological figures are not evidence of anything.
quote:
Your sarcasm suggests a subjective pressure in your remark that might excuse an otherwise awful display of scientific ignorance.
However there is absolutely no excuse for your complete ignorance of how one constructs a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis as opposed to ad hoc fairy tales that can neither be tested nor falsified.
quote:
Science has a way of separating competing hypotheses, called strong inference.
Yes, methodolgical naturalism is very effective at separating out competing hypotheses...appeals to the supernatural unfortunately is an absolute failure at separating out anything except one group of people from another.
quote:
But ad hoc explanations do not weaken the plausibility of a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed.
However, there is no reason to generate a non scientific ad hoc explanation for natural phenomenon except for religious dogmatism bred from ignorance. The principles of genetics (principles which are extremely well supported) gain no greater explanatory power by claiming "Goddidit". In addition, there is no evidence that Goddidit or that God exists. There is no way to test it, no way to falsify it..therefore, it is useless as a scientific concept. That you imply attaching personal mythology on the coattails of actual science somehow gives said mythology credibility demonstrates the weakness of your position.
quote:
The Jehovah is real hypothesis has many, many scientific confirmations, and so is rather plausible. Deal with it.
Deal with this, even among the religious you cannot find consensus of these so called "scientific confirmations". You cannot provide a testable hypothesis of the existence of Jehovah other than to say repeatedly that the bible confirms it. In addition you can no more falsify Jehovah's existence than Vishnu's, the Pink Unicorn, or Elvis as god.
Thus merely attaching the word "scientific" to your poorly constructed musings gives them no greater weight but does provide clear evidence that you are at present unable to "deal with" science or scientific methodology...a pity really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-20-2004 3:22 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 11:34 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024